Do You Think A Centralized Global Government Is A Good Idea?
"The welfare of people has always been the alibi of tyrants." - Albert Camus
The links and quotes below offer arguments for and against centralized global power: Arguments from those who support centralized global power are found in this 400 page report by the Commission on Global Governance: "Our Global Neighborhood Report of the Commission on Global Governance" (Oxford University Press, 1995), link here: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000100074…
A shorter 120 page version of "Our Global Neighborhood," link here: https://gdrc.org/u-gov/global-neighbourhood…
Arguments from those who do not support centralized global power can be found in Henry Lamb's critique of "Our Global Neighborhood" titled: "A Summary Analysis" (First published in eco-logic, 1996) link here: http://channelingreality.com/nwo_wto/global_systems/lamb_analysis_our_global_neighborhood.pdf…
Henry Lamb raises important critiques and questions about centralized global government:
Is “global governance” actually global tyranny?
How would the loss of sovereign nation states impact sovereign citizens?
Do we want an unelected global military run by a centralized army?
What impact would the proposed UN Economic Security Council have on the economics of nation states?
How will unelected NGOs (today, there are over 54,000 of them), embedded in most countries, be utilized if global government grows?
If the proposed global government (ok, global neighborhood) collects money through various schemes throughout the daily life of citizens living across the globe, how is that different from global taxation?
Do you value national sovereignty, individual liberty, and property rights? Do you think those running a global “neighborhood” will?
Thought experiment: Did you prefer living in a U.S. “lock down state” that enforced a centralized response to covid that took away rights (free speech, deprivation of liberty without due process, a speedy and public trial, right to a jury trial, the right to assemble, etc.) to protect us? Or, would you have preferred to live in a state that took a decentralized approach and left their citizens to decide how they individually wanted to respond to covid? [Remember, by early 2020 Stanford researcher Professor John Ioannidis, Ph.D. found that “the absolute risks of death in the highest risk group, i.e. elderly individuals ≥80 years old in the epicenters of the pandemic … barely reached 1.75% … and, in several locations it was lower than 1 in a thousand.”]
Important quotes from Henry Lamb's Summary Analysis:
"The difference between "world government" and "global governance" has been compared to the difference between "rape" and "date-rape," (e.g., there is no difference.)
"Sensitivity over the relationship between international responsibility and national sovereignty [is a] considerable obstacle to the [globalist] leadership at the international level."
"Subtle, carefully crafted language significantly expands the mission and authority of the UN Security Council to intervene in the affairs of sovereign states when it determines that the security of individuals is in jeopardy... This expanded authority includes military intervention. The UN Security Council would be empowered to raise a standing army. Article 43 of the UN Charter authorizes such a force, but has never been activated. The Commission says: "It is high time that this idea - a United Nations Volunteer Force - was made a reality." Such a force would be under the exclusive authority of the UN Security Council and under the day-to-day command of the UN Secretary General.”
"Described as an "Apex Body," the UN Economic Security Council (ESC) is proposed to have "the standing in relation to international economic matters that the Security Council has in peace and security matters.” The new ESC would be a deliberative, policy body rather than an executive agency. It would work by consensus without veto power by any member.”
"According to the 1995 Commission on Global Governance's report, 28,900 international NGOs are known to exist, and many are directly involved in advancing the agenda of global governance.”
"The Commission's refusal to recommend taxing power for the UN while advancing dozens of global revenue-raising schemes is similar to declaring that "global governance" is not "world government." [Meaning that global revenue-raising schemes are the same as global taxation.]
"The United States is the only remaining power strong enough to influence the United Nations. Those voices now speaking for all Americans in the United Nations are cheering the forces that would diminish national sovereignty and render individual liberty and property rights relics of the past.”
"If the current voices representing the United States continue to push for global governance, the world will be committed to a course which will truly transform society more dramatically than the Bolshevik revolution transformed Russia. [Approximately 1.5 million Russian soldiers and 8 million Russian civilians were killed during the Bolshevik slaughter. The total Russian death count during the Bolshevik period is ~10 million if disease and famine are taken into account.]
"The recommendations of the Commission, if implemented, will bring all the people of the world into a “global neighborhood” [aka global government] managed by a world-wide bureaucracy, under the direct authority of a minute handful of appointed individuals.”
Question: Does an iron cage of global bureaucracy that supplants nation states offer benign safeguards or escalating enslavement for world citizens?
Consider listening to Henry Lamb’s early warnings about globalism:
Global Governance and the Future of the United States
Henry Lamb’s 1992 warning about Agenda 21
Consider listening to Klaus Schwab, founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum, discuss his plans for a global reset:
World Economic Forum: COVID-19 & The Great Reset
Klaus Schwab: I Created Global Shapers as a Force to Shape our Common Future
Klaus Schwab: "If You Have Nothing to Hide You Have No Reason to Be Afraid"